The ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Bombay Sales Corporation, , Ahmedabad

ITA 3224/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8629 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Non-deduction of tax; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.2748/AHD/2014 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.3224/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) 1. M/S.BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION GROUND FLOOR MRUDUL TOWER NR.TIMES OF INDIA BLDG OFF ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 009 2. THE ASST.CIT CIRCLE-5(2) AHMEDABAD / VS. 1. THE JT.CIT RANGE-3 AHMEDABAD 2. BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFB 8515 F ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR '()* / DATE OF HEARING 21/08/2017 +,-.)* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/09/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - TAX(APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 05/09/2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS OBJECTED TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,65,752/-. 3. THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ITS APPEAL H AS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TOWARDS REVERSAL OF DISALLOWANC E OF RS.3,68,94,759/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER S.194H OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' ). 4. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE RELEVANT F ACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP-FIRM ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF SOLE DISTRIBUTOR OF SHEELA FOAM PVT.LTD. IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT FOR SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS IN PUF FOAM-SHEETS, PILLOWS, CUSHIONS, COV ERED MATTRESSES ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.92,95,230/-. THE RETURN OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO INTER-ALIA FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INTEREST-FREE LO ANS AND ADVANCES TO TWO PARTIES, NAMELY, MRS. KALPANABEN AM IN (CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2011 RS.8,17,025/-) AND MRS. SHOBANA BEN AMIN (CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2011 RS.27,08,547/-). THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS FOR BUSINESS PURP OSES IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY T HE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY FUND FLOW STATEMENT TO SHOW THA T THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS AFORESA ID INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED INTEREST O F RS.3,65,752/- BEING PROPORTIONATE INTEREST INCURRED FOR NON-BUSIN ESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADVANCES WERE M ADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND ARE ALSO OUTSTANDING FOR PAYMENT. THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF RUNNING ACCOUNT OF ASSESSE ES BUSINESS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SUBSTANTIA L BOOK PROFITS OF RS.63,32,378/- DURING THE YEAR ITSELF WHICH IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE TOTAL FUNDS ADVANCED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ON ENQUIRY FR OM THE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THESE PARTIES TO WHOM THE INTER EST-FREE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN ARE RELATED TO THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-F IRM. ON FURTHER ENQUIRY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE ON THE CAPITAL BALANCES OF T HE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS. THE LD.AR HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE HU GE ACCRUED PROFITS ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENABLE IT TO MAKE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WOOLCOMB ERS INDIA LTD. (134 ITR 219) [CAL.]. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AFOR ESAID DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS VS. CIT (22 4 ITR 627)[SC]. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE FILE OF CI T(A) FOR FRESH EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2433/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2010-11 ORDER DATED 13/06/2014. HE ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THA T THE ISSUE BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BORROWED AND INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TOWARDS ADVANCES G IVEN FREE OF INTEREST. THEREFORE, INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON THE BORROWED FUND S TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES REQUIRES TO BE DISALLOWED AS HAVING BEEN INCURRED FOR NON-PURPOSES IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR THEREAFTER REFERRED TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PA RTIES TO WHOM INTEREST- FREE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN LENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE PARTIES OUT OF THE AMCO BANK LTD. MORT GAGE ACCOUNT WHICH IMPLIEDLY MEANS THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN BORNE ON THIS INTEREST BEARING MORTGAGE ACCOUNT WHEREAS ADVANCES HAS BEEN GIVEN FREE OF ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - INTEREST. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHIN G ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE ONUS TO PRO VE THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES UNDER S.36( 1)(III) IS SQUARELY ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE GENERAL STATEM ENTS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY OBJECTIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH AVAIL ABILITY OF NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL AT THE TIME OF MAKING ADVANCES. THE LD.DR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT FACTS OF EACH YEAR VARIES AND P LEADED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL, THERE IS NO WARRA NT TO REFER THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROP ORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSES ON CERTAIN ADVANCES MADE TWO PARTIES WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO SMT.KALPANABEN AMIN. THE OUTSTANDING AM OUNT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR TO HER WAS RS.2,32,064/- WHIC H WELLED TO RS.8,17,025/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR. SIMILARLY, A NOTHER ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO SMT. SHOBHANABEN AMIN. ADVANCE AT THE BEG INNING OF THE YEAR TO HER WAS RS.15,57,627/- WHICH GREW TO RS.27,08,54 7/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR. ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - 8.1. TO APPRECIATE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, W E TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL S OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS. THUS, NO INTEREST-FREE OWN FUNDS ARE AVA ILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. CLEARLY ASSESSEE-FIRM ON THE ONE HAND INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS INTEREST ON THE CAPITAL OUTSTAN DING FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS WHEREAS INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN M ADE TO THE RELATIVES OF THE PARTNER. NO BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AT ANY STAGE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR DOING SO. NO JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US EITHER. IT IS THE REPEA TED CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN FUNDED OUT OF PROFITS AVAILABLE DURING THE YEAR. BUT FOR GENERAL ASSERTI ON, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT PROFITS SO GENERATED HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TOWARDS ADVANCES. AS NOTICED NEARLY 18 LAKHS IN AG GREGATE WAS OUTSTANDING WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AGAINS T WHICH THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO THE PARTNERS ON THEIR CORRESPONDIN G CAPITALS. THE PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR IS OUT OF MORTGAGE AC COUNT WHICH GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING INTE REST WHILE ADVANCING INTEREST-FREE LOANS. WE ALSO TAKE NOTICE OF THE RE ASONINGS GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR EMBARKING ON PROPORTIONATE DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES. THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO FUND FLOW STATEMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THEM TO A PPRECIATE ASSESSEES PERSPECTIVE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY SUCH STATEMENT OR O THER EVIDENCES BEFORE ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - US EITHER, WHICH COULD ESTABLISH USAGE OF NON-INTER EST BEARING FUNDS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ONUS LIES ON ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES TO ENABLE IT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ON FACTS, WE D O NOT SEE ANY REASON TO GRANT SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD AND INCREASE MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WOOLCOMB ERS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FAIL TO U NDERSTAND THE PURPORT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE ADVANCE TAX WAS PAID OUT OF OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND THE INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PAYMENT FROM OVERD RAFT ACCOUNT BY ITSELF WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT FOR UTILIZATION OF BORRO WED FUNDS OR ADVANCE TAX PURPOSES. NATURALLY, ADVANCE TAX IS PAID FOR PROFI TS EARNED, A PART OF WHICH IS EAR-MARKED FOR TAXATION. A MERE PAYMENT FROM THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE NOT A HANDICAP FOR CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. WHILE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR NON-BUSINESS ADVANCES, INTERE ST HAS BEEN PAID ON PARTNERS CAPITAL. THE FACTS CANNOT BE EQUATED. H ENCE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - 8.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2433/AHD/201 3 RELEVANT TO AY 2010-11 TO SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE PARTNERS CAPITAL DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL ARE NOT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. THE PROFI T BELONGS TO PARTNER AND GETS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL ON WHICH INTEREST IS PAYA BLE BY THE FIRM. ON THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY PURPOSE OF SENDING T HE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY BEFORE US AS TO WHAT FACTS REQUIRED TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE REVENU E. IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS REGARD. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY DEMONSTRABLE CASE TO SHOW THE AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM FOR REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2748/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW WE SHALL TURN TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .3224/AHD/2014 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TOWARDS OF DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY RESORTING TO S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT TH E AFORESAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - 4. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER:- '2.1 THE LD. AO HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE TDS U/S.194H IN RESPECT OF SALES INCENTIVE OF RS. 3,68,94,759/-. 2.2 THAT IN THE FADS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED U/S.194H WER E SATISFIED WITH RESPECT TO THE SALES INCENTIVE PAYMENT OF RS. 3,68,94,759/- . 4.1 WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER:- 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS,, THE APPEL LANT PRODUCED ALL ACCOUNTING RECORDS AND OTHER MATERIAL FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH WERE DULY VERIFIED BY AO. HOWEVER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD CLAIMED SALES INCENTIVE OF RS.3,68,94,759/- BUT NO TDS U/S 194H WAS DEDUCTED THERE FROM AND HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT IT S EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS REPLY ON 12.11.2013 STATING THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY TDS U/S.194H IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT THE SALES INCENTIVE IS NOT BROKERAGE OR COMMISSIONER PAID TO THE DEALERS AS ITS AGENT. THE APPELLANT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 BUT ON APPEAL; CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. RECENTLY EVEN THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE DEPT. TO ITAT BEING ITA NO.2553/AHD/2013 WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DTD. 13-6-2014. HOWEVER, THE A.O. REJECTED THE SAID EXPLANATION MAI NLY ON THE GROUNDS AS STATED IN PARA-8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY RELYING UPON THE ORDER FOR AY 2010-11. 4.2. IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRECEDING A.Y. 2010-11. CIT(A) ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL VIDE THE ORDER DTD. 26/08/2013. ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD VIDE THE ORDER DTD . 13.06.2014 IN ITA NO.2433/AHD/2013 [BY ASSESSEE] & NO.2553/AHD/2013[B Y REVENUE] DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - '5.1. WE FIND THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED I N ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.L835/AHD/2011 FORA.Y.2008-09 DTD. 02-08-2013 . THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE FACTS IN T HIS YEAR ALSO ARE IDENTICAL. SINCE NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS P OINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ID. C1T(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL ARE DISMISSED.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISI ON OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE IN ITA NO.2553/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2010-11, DATED 13/06/2014 W HICH DECISION IN TURN HAS FOLLOWED COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.1835/AHD/20 11 FOR AY 2008-09 DATED 02/08/2013. IT IS THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR ARE ALSO SIMILAR. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). THUS, APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS BEREFT OF ANY MERIT. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO .3224/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2748/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.3224/AHD/14 (BY REVENUE) BOMBAY SALES CORPORATION VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - 13. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04/ 09 /2017 SD/- SD/- () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/ 09 /2017 2..',.'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345* 6* / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6* ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. 789*'45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &7** //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.8.17 (DICTATION-PAD 27- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22.8.17/30.8.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.5.9.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.9.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER